Partly allowed

Joseph K.C v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Kerala HC26 May 2011WP(C)/3821/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition challenging the loan recovery auction proceedings by the Kerala Financial Corporation. It allowed a connected petition held by a successful bidder, directing the corporation to issue a fresh sale certificate and return the old one to resolve disputes over registration fee demands caused by court-induced delays.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(C) No. 3821 dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 11564 allowed with direction to issue fresh sale certificate and return the old one within two weeks.

Joseph K.C Vs Kerala Financial Corporation and Another — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3821 of 2011(C)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

--------------JOSEPH K.C., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHACKO, KOLATTUKUDI HOUSE, MANJAPRA.P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. MR. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶13

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

WILSON CHAKKAPPAN, CHAKKIYATHMODA VEEDU, MARIGIRI, MANJAPPRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE(H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC R2, 4 TO 6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. N. SANTHOSH R3 ADV. MR. S.SREEKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) 11564 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶21

¶22

W.P (C) Nos. 3821 & 11564 of 2011

¶23

¶24

Dated, this the 26^th May , 2011

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The issue involved in both these writ petitions is closely interconnected with each other and hence are dealt with together.

¶27

The petitioner in W.P (C) 3821 of 2011 had availed a loan of Rs. 57,35,824/- from the first respondent/Kerala Financial Corporation, on the strength of some landed properties and such other items offered as collateral security. But, the loan amount could not be repaid on time, which made the Corporation to take further steps, whereby the concerned property was taken over, invoking the relevant provisions of law. Subsequently, the said property was put on sale by public auction and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11564 of 2011 turned to be the successful bidder. On satisfying the entire bid amount of Rs.30,75,000/- on 14.10.2009, the sale was confirmed as per the proceedings dated 25.06.2010 (Ext. P2 in W.P(C) 11564 of 2011). Pursuant to Ext. P2, the petitioner/bidder produced the stamp papers for execution of the documents and the respondent Kerala Financial Corporation issued Ext. P3 sale certificate dated 26.07.2010, which according to the

¶28

W.P. (C) No. 3821 & 11564 of 2011

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

petitioner/bidder was not handed over on time because of the various court proceedings in the meanwhile, particularly, in view of the interim orders of stay passed at different levels. It is also brought on record that, the proceedings were intercepted by this Court, as per the judgment dated 30.07.2010 in W.P(C) 21252 of 2010, giving an opportunity to the defaulter to challenge the same by filing revision petition before the Government. It is stated that, the defaulter filed revision petition before the Government and obtained an interim stay. Finally, the Revision Petition was dismissed by the Government, as per the order dated 17.01.2011 (produced as Ext. P4 in W.P(C) 11564 of 2011). It was only after culmination of the proceedings as above, that the second respondent in W.P.(C) 11564 of 2011 handed over Ext. P3 sale certificate to the petitioner on 18.01.2011 for registration.

¶31

Grievance of the petitioner/bidder in W.P.(C) 11564 of 2011 is that when the petitioner approached the concerned Sub - Registrar's office for registration, the said authority was refused to accept the sale certificate, demanding '10 times' of the registration fee, as the penalty for the delay of four months. This made the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent to execute a fresh sale certificate in place of Ext. P3. Despite issuance of Ext. P7 notice dated 01.02.2011, the matter is

¶32

W.P. (C) No. 3821 & 11564 of 2011

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

still to be finalized, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief.

¶35

In the meanwhile, the defaulter being aggrieved of the order passed by Government (dismissing the Revision Petition), has approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 3821 of 2011.

¶36

Both the matters were heard in detail.

¶37

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Financial Corporation and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the concerned respondents, this Court finds that, a proper 'fact adjudication' has been made at different levels and that the proceedings have attained finality, by virtue of dismissal of the revision petition. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said findings and reasoning. As such, W. P (C) No. 3821 of 2011 is found as devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶38

With regard to W.P(C) 11564 of 2011, going by the sequence of events, as mentioned herein before, it is seen that there is absolutely no lapse on the part of the petitioner with regard to the alleged delay in submitting the sale certificate. Though Ext. P3 sale certificate is dated

¶39

W.P. (C) No. 3821 & 11564 of 2011

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

26.07.2010, it was actually handed over to the petitioner only on 18.01.2011, which pleading is not controverted in any manner. Interim orders of stay granted by this Court as well as the Government, are also stated as having contributed the delay in handing over the sale certificate. In any view of the matter, it is settled law that, if any prejudice has been caused to any party to the proceedings before this Court, it shall not be taken to the detriment of the party concerned, in view of the principle behind the maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Bravabit (Act of Court shall prejudice no man).

¶42

In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to issue, a fresh sale certificate in place of Ext. P3 to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and return Ext. P3 after cancellation of the same, so as to enable the petitioner to take further steps for refund of the stamp duty in accordance with law.

¶43

W.P(C) 11564 of 2011 is allowed to the above extent. No cost.

¶44

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶45

kmd

Joseph K.C v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph K.C v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Abdul Rahiman Vs Executive Engineer & Others

Mathew Joseph Vs Sub Registrar

Sharmila Vs State

P.v.Joseph Kunju Vs State of Kerala and Others

Tomy Thomas K Vs State of Kerala

Salomi George Vs S.B.T.